Still on Argentina’s past situation, it can be affirmed that the main issue with the regarding arbitral decisions was its claim of “necessity” in order to defense and consequently avoid the investment treaties liability, whatactually opens the question of whether there should be revision of such decisions or not. To better understand this claim, we must look into the cases of arbitral disputes Argentina faced at the time. On one hand, and as the first important case on the matter, there was CMS v. Argentina1, in which the “necessity theory” was denied by the court under the fundaments that the applied measures wereadopted to safeguard essential economic interests. On the other hand, there was the LG&E v. Argentina2 in which the “necessity” claim was accepted. ICSID considered that, under the provisions of Article XI of the 1991 Argentina - US BIT, the measures implemented were necessary in order to maintain public order or to protect the most essential security interests of the country, mentioning that therewere no other available means to effectively respond to the crisis at the time. Regarding the outcome of the decisions, Argentina submitted the CMS decision to an annulment committee that actually was able to admit that the decision didn’t analyze the exception of “necessity” as established in Article XI. From this perspective we can see that the annulment committee actually said that theoriginal committee was unable to apply the law in a correct manner and, even though it recognized the mistake, it wasn’t able to take any proper measures in order to review the decision due to its lack of powers to do so. This situation shows us that not only we have some serious lack of consistency in the decision making process as a lack of any sort of organisms or mechanisms in which such decision canbe submitted and reviewed or fully annulled.